A Childlike Trio (part I)

I am presenting a paper at the Notre Dame Philosophy and Ethics Conference coming up on Friday. I thought I would post the paper bit by bit on this blog for the fun of it. I've never been to this conference and I'm both nervous and excited- more the latter than the former. If it weren't for my good Professor Kemp, I would never have been given the idea or opportunity to do this. Hats off to him!


In a society where self-sufficiency, indestructibility, and skepticism dominate the overall thought and lifestyle of the society, the need for understanding and practicing childlikeness is great. The life of the Christ Child is best suited as a model for our understanding of childlikeness. There have been saints throughout history who have practiced childlikeness. Using the Christ Child’s life, I will extract three elements of childlikeness. The first is obedience. The Christ Child was obedient to His Father in heaven, His Mother, and to His foster-father Joseph. The second is vulnerability. In choosing to be born in a manger, being exiled into Egypt, and having His identity be 'Nazarene,' the Christ Child made Himself vulnerable. The third element is childlike understanding. The Christ Child showed us childlike understanding in the temple before the elders and in His response to Mary. I will then demonstrate how events in the lives of three saints exemplify these three elements of childlikeness. I will use the 16th century English martyr Saint Edmund Campion as an example of obedience; for vulnerability, Saint Francis of Assisi; and for childlike understanding, Saint Thomas Aquinas.

It is interesting that Christ chose to be born in a time when children were treated much differently than they are today. The social status of children at the time of Christ was, according to Saint Paul, “no better than that of slaves.” 1 Obedience therefore permeated children’s lives at the time of Christ. Christ not only accepted this role but He embraced it and made it holy. Beginning with Luke’s narration of the finding in the temple, Christ is found in his father’s house, going about his father’s business. 2Fulton Sheen writes, “The temple had great fascination for Him, since it was the little figure or model of heaven; the Father’s house was His home and in it He felt at home.” 3In remaining behind in the Temple while his parents began the return journey home, Christ clearly places obedience to God above obedience to earthly parents. The Gospel narration ends with Christ being obedient also to his earthly parents. “And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” 4In choosing to be born to earthly parents to whom he made himself subject, Christ also demonstrates the need for obedience here on earth. Since Christ was no ordinary child, we have to look at his actions as transcending his age and culture. Sheen writes, “There was no fundamental difference between the Boy in the temple and the Man Who was to say that He ‘must be lifted up on the Cross.’” 5This understanding of childlikeness reaches beyond a child being obedient to his father and mother. As Christians we are all to love God above earthly things. And, as Christ showed us by being obedient to his parents, we are also called to obedience here on earth; specifically obedience to a Mother, Mother Church.

Many saints have lived out this childlike obedience. Saint Edmund Campion took it so seriously that he was martyred for it. Campion was born in London in the year 1540 to a candlestick maker. He went on to become the top scholar of Oxford, catching the attention and admiration of the Earl of Leicester and even Queen Elizabeth. He was ordained a deacon in the Church of England and would have continued onto the Anglican priestly office had not Augustine and Chrysostom come knocking at his pate. Wrestling with the Fathers of his ancestors and finding himself surrounded with the blood of English martyrs, he exiled himself to Ireland to contemplate these new voices beckoning him home; beckoning him to an obedience that went beyond the Queen’s court and Oxford’s halls. In 1573 Campion was ordained priest in the Society of Jesus. By 1580 he had returned to England as a missionary. He was captured the very next year. Queen Elizabeth, however, was not about to let her prized scholar go to waste. She personally met with Campion and offered him clemency on the one condition that he apostatize. Surely a man as reasonable, as learned as Campion would not be driven in the same mad vein as the eccentric chanting monks who threw their lives away for the sake of being Romish Papists. Surely Campion would see the need for a new Church. Campion refused. He was tortured in the tower then was hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. 6 The beloved Saint Edmund’s ultimate act of martyrdom for the Church is the clearest embodiment of Christian childlike obedience. No ties severed his obedience neither to God nor to his earthly parent, the Church.

Stay tuned for vulnerability.

Footnotes:
1 (Galations 4:1)

2 (Lke 2:49)

3 (Sheen, Life of Christ, p 47)

4 (Luke 4:51)

5 (Sheen, Life of Christ, p 51)

6 Evelyn Waugh, Saint Edmund Campion

Why I LOVE Kate Nash

The only songs in my playlist on Grooveshark are by Kate Nash... aside from "the Call" by Regina Spektor. I try to mimic Kate's fashion. She's just plain cute with her red hair, freckles, and yellow dresses. She's colorful, feminine, and spunky.

Her music is addicting in the best sense. That is, I have been listening to it for almost a year and I still am not tired of it. My favorite songs are Foundations (the edited/clean version), Merry Happy, Birds, Mouthwash, Don't You Want to Share the Guilt, Do Wah Doo, Habanera...


Not that long ago, she released her second album "My Best Freind is You." I was listening to it when I cam upon the "Mansion Song." It EXPLODED in an angry poem of f-bombs. It's safe to say that Kate is explicit in her language. But this was A LOT even for her. But through the f-bombs, the lyrics caught my attention. I never fancied Kate to be a woman of morals. From following her blog, I knew she had class and some sense of normallity. But this song was something a bit more than that. Here are the edited lyrics:

Mansion Song

-Kate Nash

I fancy the hip rock 'n' roll scenester
I wanna be **** and then rolled over
Cause I'm an independent woman of the 21st century
No time for knits I want sex and debauchery
I read glamour & the guardian
I like flowers & I'm hardy & I take cocaine
I don't give a **** about her I want your name
I can get **** like the best of men
Like the best of men Like the worst of pain
Inflicted on another young girl again
Impressed by another guitar hero
He's a top score & you're a zero
You're out of your league
There ain't no rubber on the tracks it's gravel
You fall hard cut quick and it's an STD a cut knee
You're a side of stage grasp a laugh
An aftershow party in a bath
**** and expected to be ****
A gasp from an uninformed intruder
The crowd go wild and things get ruder
They're already out of hand and there's no-one here
To take your hand. It's a cold shower and a scramble
For a dirty pair of knicker don't get yours mixed up with hers
Now get out of bed get out of bed get out get out get get out of bed
Get up get down & get undressed! Cause that's what you
Do best strip strip strip n s*** **** get **** 'n drag
And be impressed by the better sex take a piece of raw
Vegetable and hold it to your breast and say you stood
For nothing. You were just a hole that lacked passion
Another undegnified product of society. That girl
Should have been a mansion.

The song is followed by drums and a bridge with Kate singing:

I don't have to be your baby (x4)

We can make love (x3)
You can get some
You can get some
This is not love

I am a mansion!
I am a mansion!
I won't take none of your ****!
[x4]

You can try and have your way
But I have far too much to say
You will be asleep before I've taken off my shirt
(x2)

I'll be a lady
And I will be a lady
And I will never let you...

I did some research on this song and found this article from http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=19290)

"Nash explained to The Daily Telegraph April 7, 2010 that the song was inspired by the fame-hungry groupies she encountered when performing at festivals: "There were these stupid girls kind of doing my head in. I felt really angry," she said. The London singer added: "They thought what they were doing was really cool and edgy, whereas everyone just thought they were idiots. No one else respected them – just being sleeping around on tour and picked up and ditched in the next town. It's not a career. It's not an ambition to, like, have sex with someone who plays guitar. It's almost like drinking when you're depressed. You know if you're really down and you're, like, 'I'm going to drink three bottles of wine,' and then you're, like, 'Boo hoo,' at the end of the night. It's a depressant. And, like, using sex as a way to make yourself feel better or cool is not going to work. You need to feel good, and then once you feel confident and happy and want to be promiscuous, or whatever, do it on your own terms. Don't let somebody use you, because those guys don't care."

Nash explained to The Daily Telegraph the lyric, "Take a piece of raw vegetable and hold it to your breast" She said: "You know in Gone with the Wind at the end where she kills that guy and she goes off and says that speech, 'I'll never be hungry again,' [and holds up] a turnip? It was like a really righteous moment. She was, like, 'I'll never be abused again.' But those girls, at the end of the day, like, what have you stood for? **** all."

Nash told to The Observer that much of My Best Friend is You deals with female empowerment and one of her bugbears is the inappropriate sexualisation of young girls in modern society. "Young kids should be taught about sex but they shouldn't be taught to be sexy. It's really distasteful," she said.

Nash acknowledged in an interview with The London Times April 16, 2010 that this song's lyrics are explicit, however she considers Pussycat Dolls a considerably more corrupting force than her swearing. She said: "They do sexualise young children, it's a fact - look at their name, 'pussy' and 'dolls.' But even though I say ***** and **** and cocaine in that song, there's nothing in there as offensive as 'Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me'."

She added: "I'm sympathetic - if people don't want their kids to hear it, if they're offended by it, I accept responsibility. But I'm not gonna censor myself. I'm not a TV presenter. I'm an artist. It's unfortunate really that I became a pop star. 'cause that was accidental. I didn't mean to do that. So I apologise to parents who think that I'm gonna offend their children. But I actually think: you know what, your children won't be offended."

Nash concluded that any young girls who hear this song and the rest of My Best Friend Is You will come away from the experience "not singing about stealing people's boyfriends. They're going to be singing about wanting to be an empowered woman with ******* morals and brains. And not thinking [chipmunk-bimbo voice]: 'I wanna be pretty, I wanna be thin, I wanna s*** people.' They're gonna be thinking: 'I wanna ******** do something.' That's much better in my book. So, apologies for the swearing, but no apologies for the meaning behind it.""

Go Kate!

The "Mansion Song" is an eerie, ugly song. It's an acurate portrayal of the sad lives of those women Kate was mentioning. I agree with her completely that we sugar-coat sexual "freedom" in catchy songs. There's no controversy over songs like "California Girls" by Katy Perry. There's no swearing, but the lyrics are extremely degrading to women. They tell a lie which is as old as Adam and Eve: that sin is exciting, rewarding, enticing, a roller-coaster. While I don't intend on often listing to the "Mansion Song" because I don't like to get sin in the head, I will listen to it once in awhile just to be reminded: this is how ugly sin is.

Sacramental, Not Sentimental

I searched my mind for posts. The elections were yesterday and so I thought it would be appropriate to give my critique on them. But it has been a long time since I have visited the world of politics. Or, maybe it's just that it's the very air I breathe that I take it for granted and don't even think about it. Coming from a family where a photograph of my great-grandfather shaking hands with President Truman is framed on the wall, I can't help but feel a little blood-rush at the thought of voting. And vote I did. It was a pain in the patoot! Since I moved to an apartment but did not change my legal address, I needed to find someone who lived in my district to vouch for me. My boyfriend was in the same predicament. It took us two hours to find someone. What aggravated me the most was the thought of illegal aliens being allowed to vote with ease, somewhere, somehow. It happens.


But it is over. My favorite candidate did not win (Teresa Collett -- professor of law at the University of Saint Thomas, devout Catholic, calls herself a "Papal Feminist." What a lady). And to be honest, I am a bit disillusioned with all the other candidates. I just wish someone would overturn Roe vs. Wade and get over it. That's all I'll say.

To the point of my post. Sacramental, Not Sentimental?

It has been my experience to feel close to someone who has died. Two people in particular stand out. One of them is Saint Edmund Campion. The other is Sophie Scholl. I suppose because she's a girl, I feel a unique closeness to Sophie Scholl, even more so than Edmund. And she lived in a time I can still reach and understand. She has been haunting me since my freshman year of college (three years ago) when I would pray outside of "Planned Parenthood" with the seminarians. Without sounding cheesy and strange, it hits me especially when I'm walking outside or when I'm getting ready in the morning. It hits me when I talk to myself in German (out of habit, not because I am trying to "be" Sophie). It hits me when I sit and think. It hits me when I pause to look out a window. It hits me when I listen to '40s music while I cook. I feel close to her. I feel like she is a friend of mine who goes out of her way to visit me. She's a companion. We share a lot; we understand each other quite well. Whenever I drink with friends, she is there. Whenever I dance, she is there. Whenever I curse I feel she is there. Whenever I feel sick, she is there. Whenever I find myself in sin, she is there. Whenever I feel alone, she is there. I know that she is a sinner. I've never had a sister, so I don't know if I am hitting the nail on the head or not when I say this- but it seems to me that what we share is like secrets that two sisters share.

But it’s not that we are similar people. In many ways we are different. She grew up in Germany. She is dead. Her father was thrown into prison for awhile by the Gestapo. She had sisters. She cut her hair short like a boy’s. I think there is a distinction between sameness and love. I don’t believe in having to be the “same” as something you have love. That defeats the purpose of charity.

I learned about Sophie first from watching the film "Sophie Scholl, die letzen Tage." Then I read a book about her called "Sophie Scholl and the White Rose" by Jud Newborn and Annette Dumbach.

I pray she is a saint.

The saints! Here is my contention. I came to know Sophie as a girl like any other girl. She was human. The secular authors who wrote about her had no ulterior motivation. They didn’t have to present her in any particular light. They didn’t overly glorify her. They didn’t write long poetic prose about how she suffered and how she meekly and mildly offered herself up. The words she spoke are not translated into 17th century English dialect. Her image is not baroque. It’s Sophie. But it is also glorified. Sophie is dead, as I have said. And I believe she is in either purgatory or heaven. However, her memory is not over-clouded by this. I can look at her, at the great, saintly, things she did; I can ponder her fame throughout Germany and all over the world; and I simultaneously see a girl who is my friend.

Sometimes the only way the saints are presented to us is in the way we try to capture their glorification as saints. I came to know Edmund Campion as a human through his own writings and through the genius of Evelyn Waugh who was himself no sentimentalist. We can all agree, I think, that it is sometimes difficult to imagine the saints as they were on earth: human. It’s not anyone’s fault. The saints are in fact glorified, and it’s nice to see at least a partial image of where we’re going- what our reward will be. But it’s sad we can’t also see the other side of the picture. We can’t see the earthly side. At least, we normally can’t see it right away. I’m not here to bash artwork or poetry which is dedicated to the saints. I love beautiful artwork of the saints and even I have written sentimental poetry to them. I lament I cannot immediately see Saint Elizabeth of Hungary as a woman who probably threw up due to morning sickness; or cried when she was alone; who took walks in the afternoon and marveled at a sunset; who combed out knots in her hair; who became buzzed from wine and sometimes ate too much venison. If this is missing, then who are we to ever hope of attaining sanctity? Who were these people living perfect lives? I can’t understand them, they’re perfect, they’re glorified. They must have always been glorified because that’s all I know of them.

This is my favorite painting of Saint Elizabeth. It captures her in her daily life.

It’s true some saints were “glorified” even here on earth. I am referring to the mystics. I find them to be quite beautiful because they are like living artwork. I admire them and wish to study more about them. They are living examples as to where we’re headed. My concern is more with the saints who were not mystics.

I can see where someone may say, “Katie, in fact there were saints who lived in 17th century England.” To which I say, true, there were people who spoke like that. What I don’t like is when we translate Queen Saint Clothild’s middle-high Germanic speech into 17th century English. Another objection may be raised- how are we to translate without deviating from how they spoke? It’s easy to translate Sophie’s modern German into modern English. But what about Latin or old Slavic? How can I say what is acceptable translation and what isn’t? Shouldn’t we go with a translation which best captures the spirit of the times? To which I say: we should do as the medievals did. They took things and made them their own. In paintings, Christ and His Mother are often dressed in medieval garb, taking part in medieval customs, and existing around medieval architecture. It’s not because the medievals were stupid and thought that all of history mimicked their dress and way of life. It was a part of their “way” to take things and make them their own. The medieval German ballads “Tristan” and “Der Arme Heinrich” are yet again examples of taking something old and making it both new and old. I submit we can best translate the words of the saints into modern English (or French, Italian, German, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Norwegian, Dutch, Swahili, Portuguese, Chinese, etc. etc.) by choosing English words derived from their language, leaving out slang/idioms from pop/literary culture, choosing words based on the context of the sentence, and not slicing their sentences into our short little buggers. If this seems all hogwash to someone, then yes, fine, go with 17th century English as long as their humanity doesn’t get lost in it. I tried reading “Saint Elizabeth of Hungary” by a 19th century romantic author whose name I have forgotten. I could tell it was a work of romanticism almost immediately and had to give up on it. No way could I take the woman in that book seriously.

Another objection may be, “Katie, aren’t you imposing your 21st century American world view on the saints?” To which I reply, yes and no. Yes in the sense that I see nothing wrong in wanting to bring out their human side, and if that seems like 21st century realism, then so be it. And no because I think the following should be included in this venture:

1) The physical world they lived in (details of landscape).
2) The human world (details of customs, food, politics, cities, government etc. etc. Primary recourses are the best for these).
3) The spiritual world. (Did they come from a society dominated by Christianity or paganism? What were the details of this?)
4) What did they do that the Church recognizes them as a saint?
5) What are human attributes which are common to us all? Sorrow, joy, jealousy, love, hope, sin, forgiveness, a thirst for God etc. etc.

I deeply love the saints. Aside from the Eucharist, it’s my favorite thing about being Catholic. I have an urge to break out of this pattern of artwork and prose and flesh out their lives on earth. We’ll see if I’m any good at it. It’s worth a try. Right? In any event someone out there has got to be good at it. And if you are reading this blog and thinking you might be good at it, please steal my idea!

-Katie

P.S. I believe the adage that if you really like a particular saint, it’s probably the case that that saint particularly likes you.

P.P.S. Icons are the way to go.

Halloween and All Souls

I was so proud of the decorations that I made for Halloween this year that I am not only going to keep them up until Thanksgiving, but I am going to give them a place of recgonition here on this humble little blog. Halloween is my favorite "secular" holiday as my beloved coined it. I love it because it takes place in the autumn when the colors are rich and I am in a mood for Universal black and white horror movies (Dracula and Frankenstein in particular), the fireplace at Nanny and Grandpa Gordie's, jack-o-lanterns with gaping glowing eyes, and Young Goodman Brown. Not to mention a bowl of Milky Ways, Butterfingers, Snickers and a cup of steaming hot apple cider that gives you a tickle in the throat as you sip. This year was a sucess. :)

In my room. The tree was my own design.






My tribute to Edgar Allen Poe.

A lantern.

Looking for a bite? So are they!

Happy All Souls Day everyone!

-Katie

Love, Cupcakes, and a Quick Hello!

Dearest Followers,

I can’t believe it’s almost been a year since my last post! I am so sorry to have left you all for such a long period of time. I can’t promise a permanent return as I don’t plan on being less busy than I have been. I would like to give you a brief update on what has been happening in my life.

First of all, I am happily in a relationship. We have been dating for 5 months and two weeks. I am grateful to God for this wonderful person to share myself with. Today I made carbonara for us both and then spent a lazy few hours watching “the Office.” The secret to carbonara is using only the yolks of the eggs. Fresh parsley is also a must. It isn't easy being in love. At the same time it's a far better thing than I could have imagined. It is freeing to take Saint Paul's words to heart that married people should not act as married people, but seek first the kingdom. This passage should not be interpreted in the light of shirking one's duty of charity towards loved ones. Rather, I find it is the key to happiness in relationships. Our charity towards God should be the focus of our hearts. How well I've learned this.

Charity. It's a new love of mine. I have never been able to pray as I have beenm now that I have a deeper understanding of charity. In my "Readings in Aquinas Class" we are studying charity as expounded upon in the "Summa." Charity- a friendship with God. What is friendship? Something which is shared, mutual, and benevolent. What is shared between God and us in charity? God's Happiness. We are to do nothing but delight in His happiness. That's what charity is. It is a resting in something which it outside of ourselves. To think we can delight and rest in GOD- the ultimate happiness, the ultimate goal- and to think it is attainable here on earth is mind blowing. Being in this wonderful relationship with a man and learning about charity has affected my prayer life and understanding of just what it means to love. I could go on about charity- how it orders all of our loves, how this order will be carried into heaven, how prayer can be transformed through charity. But it's sufficient to say that through charity I "have put away childish things" (1 Corinth: 13).

Over the summer I got a job working at “Sweets" bakeshop, only a few blocks from my apartment. I can’t express my gratitude for this job. It is a small, family owned business. Getting to know the owners and being with them as they celebrated the recent birth of their first child was a blessing. The people with whom I work are so kind. I actually look forward to going to work. The small family business is the best work environment to be in. It is a treat to serve the customers and show off our creations. We sell mostly cupcakes and French macaroons. Though we also do our special-order cakes, brownies, and blondies. "Sad Macs" are my downfall. They are our french maracrons which have broken or dried out. The employees can eat a few here and there. I eat far too many. :) The photo on the left is of our "Southern Belle" cupcake. It's a red velvet cake with a white chocolate cream cheese frosting. What are my favorites? Check out the "Feisty Goat"; "Pucker Up"; and "Triple Chocolate."

I am enjoying these autumn days. It is my favorite season.


Deo gratias.

Katie

Our chocolate "French Macarons"

Pied: patchy in color; splotched or piebald

Pied Beauty
Gerard Manley Hopkins

GLORY be to God for dappled things—

For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;

For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;

Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;

Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;

And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;

Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)

With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;

He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:

Praise him.

The Eastern philosopher desires to get out of change, as was touched upon in the last post. The quest of the Buddhist is to find the one which does not change. In existence there is change, and so to exist is to suffer.

Gerard Manley Hopkins, a Jesuit priest, looks at the cycle of existence differently. In his poem, Hopkins looks at the world- all the particularity and change and calls it good. He gives glory to God for it. This is a blatant denial of the Great Escape of the Buddhist. Hopkins poses the question, “Isn’t this all beautiful because it comes from the One Who is Past Change?”

To a Christian, it is more than likely self-evident that the world is good. And the reason for that is because it was revealed to the Jews. (Genesis 1:31, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”). But to the rest of the world, this is not self-evident.

Well, that’s all for now. I just have to clarify something from my last post. I can see where it may have come across that I’m not a fan of philosophy. I have to laugh at that because philosophy is my greatest joy to study. I am madly in love with Socrates and Thomas Aquinas. Just thought I’d throw that out there.

Gerard Manley Hopkins

How to Scandalize a Philosopher

First of all, before I get into the actual post: I just have to apologize for the lack of posts! But I think this is how sporadic it’s going to be for the rest of the semester. Know that I have been faithfully checking out the blogs I follow, if I don’t always have the time to comment on them. Plus we barely have internet at my house. It comes in waves and will cut the connection at any given moment.

Okay, so, down to business. I made a mistake at the end of my last post. I said that there were two “philosophies” which split from the Religious/Philosophical view of Happiness. There is only one philosophy, the other is a history.
See if you can guess which religion holds these 4 truths:
1) To exist is to suffer
2) Suffering is caused by desire
3) The point of life to get out of desire and escape the suffering of this world
4) There is an eightfold path to enlightenment/escape.
If you guessed Buddhism, you hit the nail on the head. Buddhism is a philosophical religion. Their belief that we are trapped by our existence is quite similar to Plato’s teaching that we are souls trapped in a body. In dealing with suffering, Buddhism is fascinating in that it looks at suffering and isn’t superficial about it. It has a keen understanding of the passing nature of all things. Yet, their answer to suffering is that physicality is bad and we must escape it- to be on the run. The great enemy here is TIME. Time doesn’t permit us to escape.

Now see if you can guess which religion I am about to describe this time. This religion did not spring out of a philosophy. It did not come from a moral code. It was not founded as a way to make the world a better place. In fact, the members of this religion were just going along their merry way when the encountered someone. And then they wrote a collection of books on how they failed in their relationship with this “someone.” Any guesses? It’s the Jews.

The story of the Jewish faith is the most unique in all of history. What is the Old Testament about? It’s about how time and time again God entered into a relationship with the Jews and how the Jews screwed it up. Their history is the history of God’s actions in the human race. Think about it. Christianity and Islam came about because of the Jews. In fact, as Catholics, we believe that we are Jews. Jesus, Mary, the 12 Apostles, they were all Jews. We are too. The experience of the Jews was the central experience of the human race. This is why Jews are so disliked. They are the great exception to the rule. They didn’t say, “We’re the greatest.” They said, “God chose us.” They didn’t preach a philosophy; they didn’t think a lot about the nature of God. And this is where they differ from Buddhism.

Everyone loves an adventure story right? Just look at the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and Indiana Jones. People love adventure stories because they echo the true drama: the drama of the human race and its relationship with God. The Jewish faith is a story. It’s a story of a struggle. It’s a story of important actions based on certain individuals. What would happen if evidence was found that Siddhartha was a legendary figure? Nothing much. The important thing was that the Enlightenment happened, it doesn’t really matter who brought it about. If it didn’t come through him- it came through somebody else. But, take Moses. Imagine what would happen if it was discovered that he never existed, that Jesus never existed. Judaism and Christianity would cease to be. Everything depends on certain things that have happened in time. It depends on the particulars of the intervention of God in a very specific, particular way. The idea that “life is an adventure” comes from the Jews. Therefore, anyone who sees Christianity as boring has never encountered Christianity.



To the philosopher, this is the scandal of Christianity. The idea that God picked a bunch of barbaric shepherds over the great civilizations is something that is hard to wrap even my mind around. And let’s be honest, Christianity has entered the bloodstream of humanity. Denying this is like standing in front of a blazing fire and remarking, “It’s so cold.” Or like listening to Mozart and saying, “He’s not very talented.” Again, what happened to the Jews is the central religious experience of the human race.